Talk:List of Australian Senate appointments

Good start

This is a good start.

It will need some explanation of what "appointment" means, and we should use the terminology used in s. 15 of the Constitution. In most cases, they were "chosen" by the state parliament. In some cases, they were "appointed" by the state governor because the state parliament was not in session. Gary Humphries and Margaret Reid are special cases - they were chosen/elected by a Joint Sitting of the Federal Parliament, under an arrangement that no longer applies to territory senators. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it will need a bit more, but I personally know very little about that side of it so I left it for someone who really had an idea. I suspect that a longish intro is probably called for, because the table itself (I feel) is best as uncluttered as possible. Frickeg (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Robert Wardlaw

According to the Journals of the Senate for 1954-55, Robert Wardlaw was appointed on the day of the 1953 election to the vacancy created by the expiration of John Marriott (Australian politician)'s appointment to the vacancy created by the death of John Chamberlain (Australian politician) (1950-56 term). This appears to have been overlooked by Adam Carr. Marriott was elected at the same time for a 1953-59 term.--Grahame (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't quite make sense, Grahamec. According to the Parliamentary Handbook, Wardlaw's term began on 9 May 1953, and there's no asterisk next to his name (which would mean he was chosen under s.15). Wardlaw appears nowhere in the Handbook's List of appointments to the Senate, and since 9 May 1953 was the day of the Australian Senate election, 1953, this can only mean that he was elected that day and his term began immediately. I can only assume that that one election served (a) to fill the remainder of the term till 30 June 1953, and (b) for a new term starting 1 July 1953. I see he retired on 30 June 1962, so I guess he had to re-stand for election in 1955 for a term starting 1 July 1956. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This is explained here (towards the bottom of the page). Wardlaw was elected to fill the remainder of John Chamberlain's term (lasting until the 1955 election), which John Marriott had been appointed to fill. This was because the Senate used to elect extra Senators (in this case six instead of five) when a long-term vacancy came up. Wardlaw was the sixth Senator elected and so replaced Marriott. Marriott was therefore technically not a senator from 8 May to 1 July 1953. (He had been elected earlier because of William Morrow's defeat.) Therefore Wardlaw was not appointed. Frickeg (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

And this confirms there was a gap in Marriott's Senate membership between 8 May and 1 July 1953. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I must have been tired when I wrote that. The note of the Clerk of the Senate (RHC Loof) does says that Wardlaw was elected to the long vacancy (ie 8 May 1953 to 1 July 1956).--Grahame (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Allan MacDonald

Allan MacDonald was appointed to a short casual vacancy on the death of Walter Kingsmill.--Grahame (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Still not on the list 8 years later. Any reason for that ? The Biographical dictionary of the Senate also lists him as having been briefly appointed.-- Find bruce (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Because people keep mentioning it on the talk page and not adding it to the article? There was probably some confusion (or hesitance) over the fact MacDonald was elected in 1934. Anyway, I've added it now. --Canley (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Kate Lundy does not belong here

I can't see that she was ever appointed to the Senate. Bob McMullan resigned on 16 February 1996 in order to contest a lower house seat at the 2 March 1996 election. Had he resigned in other circumstances, where a general election was not imminent, then a replacement senator would have been chosen by the ACT Legislative Assembly. But the impending election took care of all that. There was no point in appointing a replacement senator, as their term would have expired on 1 March. Lundy was elected on 2 March, and her term commenced immediately, in keeping with the arrangements for territory senators. Any commnents befiore I remove her? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that exclusion, but just one comment (over 5 years later): Lundy is listed in the Parliamentary Handbook and Odgers' Australian Senate Practice as having been "appointed" to fill McMullan's casual vacancy, however the method of appointment is listed as "General Election" and is the only appointment with that method. --Canley (talk) 03:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

That just seems obviously wrong on the face of it. Appointments and general elections are surely mutually exclusive. No? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I note that Frickeg removed Lundy from the list back in 2015 to which there was no objection. I agree Lundy only belongs here in relation to her own resignation in 2015. Territory senators commence their terms on the day that they are elected & their terms expire the day prior to the next general election: section 42. If she wasn't appointed in accordance with what is now section 44 then she wasn't filling a casual vacancy. She was sworn in as a senator on 30 April 1996 along with the other Territory Senators. Find bruce (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think we all agree, this is a list of appointments whereas the handbooks are lists of vacancies—there are two vacancies which are listed in Odgers and the Parliamentary Handbook which are (correctly, I think) not listed here as there was no appointment: Don Grimes and Bob McMullan. In both cases, the vacancy was referred to the relevant parliament which deferred its responsibility to appoint a replacement: Tasmania had the deadlock vote, and in the McMullan/Lundy case, the vacancy was created under Section 44 and referred to the ACT Parliament, which passed a motion to not make the appointment due to the upcoming election. It's just weird that Lundy is listed in Odgers as an appointment, but it's probably just for expediency of the table. --Canley (talk) 06:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

It just goes to show that even the most reliable sources from the most reputable publisher can have errors. Thanks, all. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

One way we could deal with Grimes & McMullen is list their names but leave the appointee blank with a note as to why Find bruce (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I decided to follow WP:bold and added the unfilled vacancies of Grimes & McMullen together with a note & references to the Hansard, which I think keeps the list accurate, but also makes it easy to reconcile with Odgers should any reader feel so inclined. Happy for it to be deleted if that is the consensus. Find bruce (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I've removed these. This is a list of appointments, not a list of vacancies. In any case these circumstances do not fit into the list - the "date" box is for the date of appointment, whereas in these ones it was the date of resignation. These circumstances are adequately covered in the Senate membership lists. Frickeg (talk) 05:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Wood & Culleton

I have deleted the entries for Robert Wood and Rod Culleton. Wood was declared not to have been eligible for election, for which the consequence, as per Vardon v O'Loghlin, is that the vacancy must be filled by election, not by appointment. Wood's vacancy was filled by a recount going to Irina Dunn. Culleton was properly on the list as a result of his bankruptcy, but the subsequent High Court decision means his position will also be filled by a recount. I have left Bob Day on the list as it reflects the current position, which may change depending on the High Court decision.-- Find bruce (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Given that this is part of a two-part list about casual vacancies, and is the only place such things could really be listed, I think they need to be mentioned somewhere, although I don't have a particular problem with removing them from the main list. Perhaps there could be a separate section about other ways vacancies have been filled - which might even be a good place to mention the Vardon/O'Loghlin special election, which we really underplay because we don't know where to put it. Frickeg (talk) 05:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

A fair point - as far as I know there is only the four individual senate elections found void - Vardon, Wood, Hill & Culleton so would be fairly easy to put as a separate table. The headings would be slightly different, how about State, Person, party, election, dates sat, reason

I briefly mentioned the Vardon/O'Loghlin special election here, as part of Vardon's lengthy struggles to keep & resume a seat, but it deserves more.-- Find bruce (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the separate table is a good idea: I think I'd be inclined to keep it much the same as with the by-elections, having only the date the new MP was seated and the reason for the casual vacancy (since we don't get into resignation dates, etc. for by-elections either). I've also wondered for a while if we shouldn't rename this article to something like List of casual vacancies in the Australian Senate so it can fully cover all of them and so we could have a set of lists consistent across parliaments - right now, using the method of filling the vacancy in the title, we've got an odd split whenever a parliament changes said method, as happens at state level every so often (cf Template:Australian by-elections). The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I am probably being too pedantic by pointing out that the vacancies are not casual vacancies (it was the main argument in Vardon v O'Loghlin). Not sure I follow what you are saying The Drover's Wife - are you meaning the distinction & split in lists say between by-elections for the SA Legislative Council prior to 1975 and the appointments once there council was a single electorate ? Find bruce (talk) 07:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, duh - you're right. I was clearly having a bit of a slow moment there. (And yes, that's what I meant.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I really should have posted here before deleting - am having second thoughts, especially given the comments about multiple lists, even about the need for a separate table. I was thinking from a perspective of they are not appointments rather than why we have lists & the benefits of trying to keep it simple. Thinking again, is it an area we can cover with something simple like a note that clarifies that it was not strictly an appointment ? Find bruce (talk) 11:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

If we wish to change the list to include vacancies filled outside normal elections, one complication we will need to deal with is how to deal with elections for short & long vacancies. To give but one example, the list currently shows Robert Guthrie who died on 20 January 1921 & on 16 February Edward Vardon was appointed to replace him. Vardon only held office until the 16 December 1922 election, when he was defeated by ALP candidate Bert Hoare for the remainder of the term finishing on 30 June 1923. William Thompson at the same election is an example of a long term vacancy (the term finished in 1926). --Find bruce (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

In light of the discussions above, I have added a list of invalid elections and appointments to the Senate that is intended not to prejudge the issue of how to best deal with them. I have used a form that can be integrated into the main list if that is the consensus.-- Find bruce (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure this works for Dropulich - it kind of implies that Wang came to his seat in the same way as the others listed, rather than winning a revote that also involved the return of Scott Ludlam. Apart from that - makes sense to me. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I share your concern - to me what doesn't quite fit is that its attempting to put together things that are a bit different. The only unifying factor is that they were declared to be elected, but then weren't. Dropulich is in the same category as Vardon's first election - they had done nothing wrong personally, but their election was invalid due to error by officials. I toyed with including the other 5 WA senators, but thought it got all a bit confusing given they were all subsequently elected & just the order changed. If someone has a better idea, great.-- Find bruce (talk) 02:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I quite like the separate table - and also the idea of renaming the page somehow, although I'm not quite sure what the best case would be. I do think the Dropulich case is awkward. I also think we need to indicate more clearly that Hill and Dropulich never served as senators - perhaps with italics? (This also applies to the Barnes -> Sheehan appointment in 1938, although Barnes had served previous terms.) Frickeg (talk) 06:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Australian Senate appointments. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011033800/http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/handbook/elections/vacancies.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/library/handbook/elections/vacancies.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Replaced with link to 2015 edition of the Handbook. Find bruce (talk) 09:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Citizenship 7

I have added details for Ludlam, Nash, Roberts & Waters. I was in two minds about the date. Technically the question the High Court was whether there was a vacancy for the place in which the person was returned - ie referring to the 2016 election, however the effect of decision is that they were never eligible for election. Happy to hear other views. Find bruce (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

These dates are absurd. In any case the correct date is the date at which the new senator is elected. Day and Culleton are ridiculously wrong too and I can't believe no one has noticed it before now. Everyone involved is considered a senator until the day the High Court ruled them ineligible, as has been established previously. Frickeg (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

It is true they were a Senator until the day the High Court ruled them ineligible, but after that date, they were never legally considered a Senator. They are not ex-senators, legally they never were Senators. Way back in 1907 the High Court held that "the result of a declaration that the election of a senator is void is the same as if he had not been originally returned as elected": Vardon v O'Loghlin: (1907) 5 CLR 201 at p 209. If as you say in another article, Waters' term ended due to resignation the Greens could nominate a replacement, under s 15 of the Constitution. But they can't because the Court has held she was never validly elected - this the whole reason that they would have to repay their parliamentary allowance, except that since 1907 the Commonwealth has always waived the repayment. Find bruce (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

No, that's wrong. Their terms will still be listed in the parliamentary handbook under "senators" (see previous examples like Robert Wood, Vardon and O'Loghlin themselves, Jackie Kelly, and many more), and their service is not magically wiped from history because of the High Court's judgement. In any case, in this particular instance it's irrelevant. I see, looking further, that all the dates in the supplementary section are dates of the original election. This is silly - in the appointments table they are the dates the appointment was made, so consequently it makes sense that the dates in the supplementary table should be the dates that the new senators' terms began. See Antony Green for more. Frickeg (talk) 04:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

You may care to read Twoomey, Anne (18 August 2017). "If High Court decides against ministers with dual citizenship, could their decisions in office be challenged?".. The Government probably hopes you are correct as it would be an easy way of avoiding the inevitable challenge to the ministers decisions. While we could continue to debate this issue, the reason I started this discussion was because I had doubts whether the date of their invalid election added anything useful. You clearly think not. Given the central feature of this little list is their invavlidity, which as you say requires a High Court declaration, in my view the prefereable date is that of the High Court declaration. Find bruce (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Twomey is talking about ministerial decisions, which has never been tested in the court (as ministers have never been found ineligible before). Vardon v O'Loghlin is very clear about their status as members of parliament, which is that their actions stand until the date of their disqualification. Given that this article is overall a list of appointments, it makes much more sense to list the date at which the replacement senators assumed their seats, i.e. the date of the recount. Frickeg (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, looking at that table a bit further, what do we think about splitting it one more time? I feel like we should probably separate the actual elections (Vardon 1908, WA 2014) from the countbacks. The current format implies these vacancies were filled in the same way, which is obviously misleading. Frickeg (talk) 04:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Convention of same party replacements

The article currently implies this was a convention from the outset but this article suggests it only emerged in the early 1950s, just after the arrival of proportional representation. I've also seen it written somewhere that one of the infamous 1975 cases was actually a clash of conventions with New South Wales not having any such convention for filling vacancies in its own upper house and the view that a Senator resigning to take up a post was different from an accidental vacancy.

The South Australia switch in 1937 was to some extent same party - the UAP and Country parties were combined at the state level but supported members for the different federal parties and here an arrangement was made for McBride and Badman to swap seats. Timrollpickering 19:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It was certainly not quite a "convention" during the 1920s and 1930s, although my impression has always been that it was seen as slightly below the belt nonetheless. The NSW upper house is not a great comparison because it was "indirectly" elected by members of both houses, so when they filled a vacancy they weren't filling a position elected by the people but one elected by themselves - hence it was much more a "by-election" than an appointment in the Senate sense. Certainly the idea that senators resigning was different from senators resigning was an argument used at the time, but it was a pretty disingenuous one and more of an excuse than anything else (especially considering Milliner). In NSW it is true that the convention had not actually been tested between 1949 and 1975 in the case of a senator resigning (all the times when that happened there was a friendly state government), but I think it's a stretch to say that the convention was not established and widely understood across the country. Frickeg (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Above all else 1975 saw the fine print of conventions and hair splitting tested to destruction, hence the eventual resort to a constitutional amendment. Timrollpickering 15:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)